Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-07-13
VIEW WORK. MHERALD,S" OPINION.


The New York Herald, a paper with
IS much political prestige as any journal
in the country, Shows a perfect under
standing of the situation here in Utah,
and sums it up in the following, which
must commend itself to every fair
minded man in the country:
The people Of Utah are now framing a
constitution under which they intend to
apply for admissi'r ITO the Union.
Neither the peopls United States
nor Congress will ever consent to the
transformation of Utah from a Territory
to a State except OF a CO. ton that will
render polygamy forever o7sible.
A Territory is under l. absolute con-
troll of Congress. 1t is comp etely in the
grasp OF the general government. Both
the enactment and the enfo cement of
its law. are controlled at Washington, Its
people are subject to Federal power.
A State is a sovereignty. ST ect to
the constitution of the United States, its
people are their own masters. They gov-
ern themselves. They make cir own
laws and choose their own officers. in
ali matters not restricted by tie Federal
Constitution State is independent ot
the general government-is beyond the
control and reach of Congress.
The Federal Constitution imposes no
limitation upon the power of any State
in the matter of marriage. Every State
is free to adopt such marriage anc Iii
vorce laws as it chooses. The people of
New York have the power by changing
their constitution to make bigamy or po-
lygamy lawful. Every State now in the
Union has that power.
Suppose Utah were admitted with a
constitution simply prohibiting polygamy
and declaring it a crime. This provision
might be repealed and polygamy sane
toned after the Territory had become
State. Then the people would be SOW
ereign. They would have the same right
to change their own constitution that the
people of every other State have. Utah
would then be as independent, as free
from tie control Of Congress or the gen.
eral government, as New York now is.
1t would have the same right, the same
power to re-estabiish polygamy as New
York now has to establish it. Mormons
in favor of polygamy would be glad to get
into the Union under such State consti.
tuition. Once in the Union, they could
change their constitution, re-ostablish po-
lygamY and defy the power of Congress
and the nation.
We say that this could be done under
constitution simply prohibiting polygamy
by an ordinary clause subject to amend
ment. OF course Congress would not for
a.moment consider such a constitution,
and knowing this the Mormons would
not waste time in framing such one.
They might incorporate an article forever
prohibiting polygamy and declaring that
this should never be changed. But the
people of to-day cannot bind the people
Of all coming time in that way. What
the trainers at Salt Lake City propose to
do is to prepare a constitution making
polygamy a crime and declaring
that this clause shall never be re-
pealed, amended or changed without the
consent of Congress. If this condition
should be constitutionally valid and
binding it would prevent the re-estab-
lishment OF polygamy without the con-
sent of Congress. But its binding force
is not free from question. Ii Congress
may impose one such condition on a
State it may impose twenty. If it may
exact a guarantee that State shall
never do one thing without the consent
of Congress it may exact similar guar
antees as to other things. That princi-
pie tends to strip the State of its
sovereignty and to subject it to the con-
troll OF Congress-a principle not in har-
mony with our theory of government,
On the other hand, such condition as
the one proposed-that polygamy shall
never be restored without the consent of
Congress-might be held forever binding
on the people of Utah by the United
States Supreme Court. But even in this
case the law making polygamy crime,
though it could not be uprooted or
changed, might nevertheless be evaded
ii the people of the State should be op-
posed TO it. For the law would have to
be interpreted by judges and enforced by
officers, not as now under federal control,
but chosen by the people Of the State.
Trials would be had before juries
summoned not under Federal but under
State laws. In short the entire admins
tration of the anti-polygamy law would
be in the hands of the people. What
that administration would be if major
ity or large minority of the people were
believers in polygamy may easily be con-
jectured.
The constitutional questions TO which
We have here called attention, must and
doubtless will be thoroughly considered
by Congress when Utah asks admission
to the Union. The surest and perhaps
the only safeguard against the perpetua-
ton OF the worst feature of Mormonism
is apopular majority in Utah that can be
trusted always to condemn and oppose
polygamy.